"Journalists" extolling MQA need their ears tested".....

[mansr]

11 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

IMO there is not enough people in the reasonable middle ground

There is no reasonable middle ground.

[mansr]

1 minute ago, james45974 said:

That is my thought also.  What would a middle ground in respect to MQA conceivably look like?  Something like MQA is OK for the low end but for ultimate fidelity it is best to use unadulterated sources?

MQA is by design all or nothing.

[mansr]

Just now, firedog said:

The middle ground is that it succeeds enough to stick around, but not enough to dictate the market, and the other formats continue to be offered as they are now.

That's not an outcome that anybody wants.

[mansr]

8 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Mans, you have been given already two perfectly reasonable middle ground options.

Where?

[mansr]

13 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

Firedog's won't work financially so scratch that one.  For james 45974's idea to work at the low end people would have to be unhappy with what is streaming and want more. Something they haven't done. 

It is the stated goal of Stuart for MQA to be the sole distribution format for all music. Anything less is unsatisfactory for him. For the labels, MQA is only compelling if this vision can eventually be realised. Their goal is to avoid distributing even CD quality, let alone studio masters, at all. The DRM features of MQA thus appeal to them, but only if it can become an exclusive format. Regular music buyers care mainly about price, and MQA adds a cost that will ultimately be paid by them. Audiophiles want the utmost in sound quality, something MQA cannot deliver. Combining these points of view, it is clear that no compromise, no middle ground, is possible. MQA is all or nothing. Those who have honestly examined the full implications have, without exception, taken the nothing side.

[mansr]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

As someone who likes objective evidence, I can objectively say you are incorrect. There are some people who want MQA to be an option. I've seen them out in the wild :~)

Anyone with an actual say in the matter?

[mansr]

33 minutes ago, Jud said:

To me, logically that means consumers have a say, to the extent their purchasing decisions determine whether there's money in it for the labels. 

Consumers are stuck with the options offered by the labels. If those become limited to MQA and MP3, what will you do? I don't see any business case for providing both MQA and a lossless format in the long term when the only value of MQA is to avoid distributing lossless files.

[mansr]

14 minutes ago, crenca said:

The subject(s) of this thread, the trade publications are not about debate or the truth, they're about selling you something.

The trade publications are about selling you.

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

You’ve turned civility into a bad word incapable of having boundaries or critical thinking. 

What we have here is a few people equating disagreement with incivility in an attempt to discredit arguments, nay facts, they dislike. Such tactics are those of a coward.

[mansr]

38 minutes ago, Jud said:

Difficult for me to believe no one in the entire industry employs engineers who could come up with their own scheme.

Of course someone else could concoct something similar. At present, however, MQA is the only such solution being peddled.

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

So, my question remains. Does or does not Stereophile provide good measurements?

The measurements seem to be generally good. The problem is that everything ends up on their "recommended component" list no matter how horribly it measures. Look at the graphs, ignore the commentary.

 

Quote

I suspect, but do not know for fact, that satisfactory measurements of MQA have not been forthcoming in a way that would support the superiority of MQA.

The closest you'll find in the usual audio publications is probably some measurements taken by JA on the Meridian Explorer2. You will, however, have to read between the lines, and then between the lines of that, to get anything remotely close to an actual assessment of the performance of MQA.

[mansr]

20 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Scroggie must be getting some nice things from the MQA cabal !!

Either that, or he hopes he will in the future.

[mansr]

11 minutes ago, HalSF said:

Sadly, that's the same post in which Ken Kessler commits the following Old Fogey nincompoopery:

 

"And just as people have now realised that nearly all punk music was fundamentally crap (Buzzcocks vs. Led Zeppelin? Sex Pistols vs. the Rolling Stones? Give me a fucking break.), so has the true high-end survived..."

 

Hard to trust a man so wrong about music to get the fundamentals of musical reproduction right.

Nearly all music is crap regardless of genre.

[mansr]

16 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

Sturgeon's Law?

Always applicable.

[mansr]

Just now, Jud said:

Holy moly. Why bother owning a stereo?

Because of the 1% or whatever that's good.

[mansr]

3 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

If 90% of Sturgeon's Law is crap, does that make the majority of other things non crap Lol ?

I'd like to make a slight amendment to Sturgeon's law: 90% of everything is crap, including the remaining 10%.

[mansr]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

I disagree with JGH quite a bit on this one. I don't know a single rational person outside of this hobby who lists lack of DBT in HiFi as a source of amusement. JGH thinks the industry is a little larger than it really is and that the industry actually has control over all the outside influences that seek people's disposable income. HiFi is a niche and the world doesn't care is it uses DBT or SBT or whatever.

DBT or lack thereof isn't the (main) point. I can assure you that audio snake oil is a source of great amusement among engineers at large.

[mansr]

36 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Here is a question..would you pay $100 per year for an ad free CA? Not a trick question..I promise!

That's in the same ballpark as a video or music streaming subscription. For heavy users, it could be money well spent. Occasional visitors probably wouldn't see as much value in it.

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Wanna bet on how many sign ups Chris would get if he went ad free? You probably would not need more than your hands and feet to count..

About 90% of posts here are probably from roughly that many people.

 

3 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

again..we live in a world where most content is assumed free. Wait a second..most people think music is free!

I listen to live music for free at my local pub almost weekly.

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

You can choose to ignore them if you choose to ignore them.

No, not necessarily.

[mansr]

3 hours ago, shtf said:

But my point being, how do the scoffers, who haven’t even taken the time to think things through, know for a fact such things are all snake oil?

Simple: physics.

 

4 hours ago, shtf said:

Perhaps a better example.  How many here might scoff and instantly think snake oil when they hear of others having their cables cryogenically-treating to improve performance?

Anyone with a smidgen of knowledge of metallurgy or other relevant physics.

 

4 hours ago, shtf said:

That said, some (me included) think too many times there’s a direct correlation between those who decry snake oil most and a potential lack of listening skills, an inferior sounding playback system, a closed-mind, or even all 3.

And there we have it, the most traditional of audiophile insults.

 

4 hours ago, shtf said:

without performing due diligence including experimenting

There is no need to experiment when elementary physics trivially predicts the outcome with great accuracy. A dropped object falls. Newton even described precisely how it falls hundreds of years ago. I don't need to repeat that experiment myself.

 

Can we go back to bashing MQA now?

[mansr]

18 minutes ago, John_Atkinson said:

And on the general point, I have been involved in blind tests of audio products for four decades. That experience has taught me that organizing a blind test where the only variable is the product under test is very difficult.

Yes, conducting a proper test is difficult. I don't see anyone disputing this. What I see is people saying that because it is difficult, such tests are not needed or even invalid, and we shouldn't even bother trying. That's some twisted logic.

 

Another common straw man argument is that it isn't feasible for the average buyer to conduct a thorough blind test of the components he or she is considering. That's absolutely true, but nobody is suggesting that they should either. What is suggested is that when a manufacturer makes unusual claims about something they sell, they should be able to back it up with a proper listening test showing an actual effect. If they did this, consumers wouldn't have to. Since the manufacturers refuse to do this, we're stuck with whatever results are obtained by volunteers, even if they fail to meet the most rigorous scientific standards.

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Blind tests have not been demonstrated to be valid

Sighted tests are demonstrably invalid. It follows that blinding is a necessary condition for a valid test. That there are also other requirements doesn't mean blinding can be skipped.

 

8 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

If talking about blind testing, how do you propose manufacturers perform scientifically rigorous tests with scientifically invalid testing procedures?

There it is again.

[mansr]

14 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Test A and Test B are options.

 

Test A is demonstrably invalid.

 

It follows that Test B is necessary for a valid test.

 

I'm not following your logic. 

 

P.S. I'm not against anything that's valid, I just don't see how you reached your conclusion. I lean toward blind tests being valid, but I guess I've never seen evidence that they are valid in audio evaluations.

There appears to be some confusion regarding what the term "blind test" means. You and others are treating it as though it were a specific, well-defined procedure. That is not the case. Blinding is just one part of a test procedure, and when perception is involved, it is a necessary ingredient in any protocol that hopes to produce a valid result. It is not, however, the only requirement.

 

Let's try an analogy. "Any useful road vehicle must have at least one wheel." True or false? Does the fact that we also need an engine and a steering apparatus mean a car without wheels can ever be useful as a means of transportation? Wheels are a necessary, but not sufficient, element in the construction of a car. In the same way, blinding is a necessary, but not sufficient, element in a perceptual test.

[mansr]

8 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I’ll buy into it as soon as I see evidence.

 

I trust you. Trust but verify. 

 

Is there any verifiable evidence with respect to audio evaluation?

There's a simple test you can do. Take two of the same item and label them differently. Give them to someone and ask them to describe the differences. I guarantee you they'll come back saying one sounded more natural, had tighter bass, lifted veils, or performed some other audio reviewer cliché.